math_fibonacci_generator

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals algorithmic detail 'fast doubling' and bounds (F(50000)), but omits side effects, error handling, or access requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and lists features without filler, but the 'Menu ID' prefix is unnecessary. One sentence with a reference to describe_tool maintains conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 2 critical parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not elaborate on behavior for different operations or count usage, relying on a separate tool for full guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and description fails to explain parameter usage. Though it mentions operations and 'count' implicitly, it does not map these to the required 'operation' and 'count' fields or specify allowed values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies specific capabilities (generate up to F(50000), test membership, list range, compute nth term) with a precise verb+resource mapping. It distinguishes from sibling math tools like factorial or prime checkers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists actionable operations but does not explicitly map them to the operation parameter or state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The mention of 'use describe_tool for full guidance' weakly compensates.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.